By KENNEDY BUHERE
An NGO, the Elimu Bora Working Group (EBWG), has reported that 64.9 per cent of learners in day schools in Kenya are sent home or denied access to classrooms because they have not paid school levies, a practice the organisation says is illegal.
In a survey titled Free Educational Betrayal, EBWG found that 64.9 per cent of day-school learners were sent home or denied access to class over unpaid levies, compared with 40.5 per cent of learners in boarding schools.
“In day schools, the illegal levies, which go up to Sh20,000, are in the name of lunch programmes and remedial classes, which go against the tenets of compulsory free education,” EBWG official Chris Owalla said in a report released recently.
While EBWG may have a point regarding charges for remedial tuition, motivation programmes, holiday tuition and other services, it is wrong to categorically classify charges for lunch programmes in day secondary schools as illegal.
The reality is that the Free Day Secondary Education policy does not provide for meals for learners in either day or boarding secondary schools.
In boarding schools, parents meet the costs of food and accommodation, in addition to the government capitation for tuition and other approved expenses. Fairness demands that parents also meet the cost of midday meals for their children in day schools.
The current gazetted secondary school fees guidelines originated from reforms initiated by former Education Cabinet Secretary Prof. Jacob Kaimenyi.
In 2014, Kaimenyi constituted a task force to address rising secondary school fees. Chaired by Dr Kilemi Mwiria, the task force recommended three options to the government.
Under the first option, the government would provide capitation to cover teaching and learning materials, related operational costs and lunch for learners in all public schools. This would have enabled students to receive free tuition and meals.
However, owing to fiscal constraints, the government adopted the third option. Under this arrangement, the government would meet the costs of teaching and learning materials and related operational expenses, excluding lunch. Households would be responsible for feeding their children, with the lunch component pegged at Sh5,861 at the time.
Clearly, the government could not afford to cover the cost of midday meals for learners in day secondary schools, including the morning tea break and lunch.
It is therefore misleading to declare all charges imposed by Boards of Management for school lunch programmes illegal without considering the policy framework under which the fees are collected. Government capitation does not cover the cost of these meals.
Yet learners still need food during the school day.
Why morning tea and lunch matter
Many day secondary schools draw learners from catchment areas averaging about seven kilometres. Students leave home early, and some arrive at school without having eaten breakfast.
The 10am tea break is therefore a lifeline for many learners who begin their school day on an empty stomach. Lunch is equally important in sustaining their concentration and energy throughout the day.
Providing meals through a centralised school programme is also easier to supervise and can be more cost-effective for parents.
I know of day secondary schools that charge between Sh7,500 and Sh10,000 per school calendar year. At these rates, a learner can receive morning tea and lunch throughout the school year, with the cost amounting to between Sh2,500 and Sh3,300 per term, depending on the school.
The most distressing reality is that many parents fail to pay the required lunch fees but still expect their children to eat at school.
Consequently, schools end up feeding learners using contributions made by the few parents who pay. The resulting debts are not merely school fee arrears but accumulated lunch arrears.
Schools face a difficult dilemma. They can stop providing meals to learners whose parents have not paid, but doing so risks leaving children hungry and undermining their ability to concentrate, retain information and perform well academically.
School feeding programmes can also improve attendance and help keep learners in school.
For school administrators, sending learners home or denying them access to class is a painful decision. However, some resort to these measures to compel parents to fulfil their responsibility to provide food for their children while they are away from home.
The irony is that some learners sent home over unpaid lunch fees do not return to school, defeating the very purpose of ensuring that they receive an education.
Evidence from school feeding programmes elsewhere demonstrates the importance of providing meals to learners.
In Kenya, the government, through the State Department for Basic Education, runs the School Meals Feeding Programme, which provides nutritious meals to about three million primary school learners in arid and semi-arid areas and urban informal settlements on school days. The programme helps attract children to school, improve attendance and support retention.
Other countries have adopted similar initiatives to support access to basic education.
Brazil, for example, operates the National School Feeding Programme, one of the world’s largest school feeding initiatives. It provides meals to millions of learners across the country.
I recall Brazilian officials who attended an international conference on school feeding in Nairobi in 2017. Their account of the scale of Brazil’s programme reportedly surprised the then Education Cabinet Secretary, Dr Fred Matiang’i.
India also provides school meals through its Mid-Day Meal Scheme.
In her special report, School Lunch Program in India: Background, Objectives and Components, Alka Mohan Chutani observes that school meals have contributed to children’s welfare and future prospects. The report highlights improvements in enrolment, attendance and nutrition, citing historical figures showing that about 140 million children benefited from the scheme.
It also refers to studies indicating that primary school enrolment in one state rose by 35 per cent between 1984–85 and 2002–03, while dropout rates in middle school declined from 24 per cent to 13.85 per cent over the same period.
These examples underline the contribution school feeding can make to educational access, attendance and learner welfare.
The realities facing day schools
The central argument of this commentary is fourfold.
First, the Free Day Secondary Education policy does not cover the cost of meals consumed by learners in day schools.
Second, learners attending school take morning tea and lunch regardless of whether their parents have paid the required fees.
Third, a significant proportion of the learners reportedly sent home or denied access to classrooms over unpaid levies may be children whose parents have paid less than 30 per cent of the cumulative lunch fees required over the four years of secondary education.
Fourth, some parents whose children have completed Form Four leave behind thousands of shillings in unpaid lunch bills. These arrears place schools under considerable financial strain.
The debts also affect the schools’ ability to meet other operational expenses, including the payment of cooks, groundsmen and Board of Management-employed teachers who help address shortages in certain subjects.
EBWG should therefore investigate the financial and administrative challenges facing Boards of Management in day secondary schools before concluding that all charges for school meals are illegal.
Day schools have limited revenue sources, relying heavily on government capitation based on enrolment. For schools with fewer than 200 learners, managing these resources can be particularly difficult.
School administrators must provide meals, meet operational expenses and pay non-teaching staff using limited funds. They may also need to pay teachers employed by Boards of Management to address shortages in particular subjects.
These responsibilities become even harder to meet when parents fail to pay lunch fees.
The situation places school leaders in an unenviable position: they must keep schools running, ensure learners are fed and provide the education services expected of them, often without adequate financial resources.
This does not mean that every levy imposed by a school is justified, or that sending learners home over unpaid charges should be accepted without scrutiny. Charges must be transparent, properly authorised and consistent with government policy and the law.
However, the debate should distinguish between unlawful levies and charges intended to meet costs that government capitation does not cover.
EBWG’s concerns about learners being denied access to education deserve serious attention. Equally, the financial realities facing day secondary schools cannot be ignored.
A lasting solution requires dialogue among the government, school administrators, parents and education stakeholders to establish a sustainable way of funding school meals without compromising learners’ right to education.
The goal should be to ensure that no child is denied an education because of poverty, while also ensuring that schools have the resources needed to feed learners and operate effectively.
Kennedy Buhere
Communication Specialist
